Skip to comments.Was St. Paul a Misogynist and a Bigot?
Posted on 06/08/2013 2:28:39 PM PDT by NYer
Homosexual activists sometimes claim that, for the bulk of Church history, homosexual acts were not condemned. In fact, the term homosexual did not even exist until the nineteenth century, so Church condemnation of such acts is really only that recent.
In an earlier post I discussed the contention that Jesus was silent on the issue of homosexual acts, but what about his followers? Many activists claim that although Paul's writings condemn activity that today is considered homosexual, he stood alone in this regard. They attempt to dismiss much of his teaching, painting him as a rebel of sorts who also believed that women were inferior to men. To support their claims, they cite Scripture passages such as 1 Corinthians 14:33-35:
As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
Activists claim that this misogynistic Pauline teaching was not repeated by others, and it would fall out of favor as Jesus broad message of equality prevailed. Similarly, they claim, homosexual bigotry fell away as well, only to be revived by the modern Church: Historical Christianity, they say, simply did not condemn homosexual acts.
It is true that Pauls instructions concerning women in churches were later revised, but what activists fail to recognize in this is a distinction between doctrine and discipline. Some of Pauls instructions were merely disciplinary in nature, intended only for a limited time and place, and they would, indeed, change later in Church history. (For more on this, see Is It a Doctrine or a Discipline?) So, were his teachings concerning homosexual acts merely Pauline discipline as well?
First, it was not only Paul in the New Testament who explicitly condemned homosexual acts. Peter and Jude did so as well. (For more on this, see Homosexuality.) Additionally, as our Catholic Answers tract Early Teachings on Homosexuality documents, Church Fathers in every century of the early Church also condemned homosexual acts (using terms such as pederasty, effeminacy, and unseemliness). Here are just a few examples:
Didache (A.D. 70):
"You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty.
Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 193):
"[C]onversation about deeds of wickedness is appropriately termed filthy [shameful] speaking, as talk about adultery and pederasty and the like."
Novatian (A.D. 250):
. . . effeminate manners are disapproved.
Basil the Great (A.D. 367):
"He who is guilty of unseemliness with males will be under discipline for the same time as adulterers.
John Chrysostom (A.D. 391):
"All of these affections [in Rom. 1:2627] . . . were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males.
Augustine (A.D. 400):
"[T]hose shameful acts against nature, such as were committed in Sodom, ought everywhere and always to be detested and punished.
Of course, countless more examples spanning the history of the Church could be cited. Clearly, this was and still is a doctrinal, not a merely disciplinary, matter. So dont be fooled by radical claims of homosexual activists who attempt to rewrite Christian history. Though terminology has varied over the centuries, it is an undeniable fact that the Church has always condemned homosexual acts.
You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born.
The Red-Letter heresy again.
The words of Jesus in the New Testament are no more inspired than the words of Paul, Luke, Peter, Mark or Matthew.
Romans is no less inspired that the Gospel of John
But you didn't have to go into so much detail.
“First, it was not only Paul in the New Testament who explicitly condemned homosexual acts. Peter and Jude did so as well.”
Well, to liberals, they invent crap they grab right out of thin air and pass it off as fact. These are the same clowns who believed the 2nd Amendment pertains to the militia, and that the militia is today’s National Guard, so ergo, you should not have guns!
Why do the sodomites and sapphites even care?
Why do they need to drag Jesus and His church through their sordid filth?
The short answer is:
finger poke to the eyeball
I think the story about Sodom and Gommora in the old testement should be enough.
Maybe John the Baptist was greater but St. Paul was as fine a Christian as one could imagine.
In his own words, “I have run the straight race, I have fought the good fight, I have kept the faith”.
Christ kept the whole law, kept it perfectly. That included the one about men not lying with men, etc. It was an abominable sin in the sight of the Lord. It IS an abominable sin in the sight of the Lord.
re: “The words of Jesus in the New Testament are no more inspired than the words of Paul, Luke, Peter, Mark or Matthew.”
I must disagree in this sense, Jesus was the Word of God incarnate. His words are the very words of God because He is God in human form.
Paul, Matthew and the other Apostles words are inspired by the Holy Spirit, but they based their teachings on the life, the commands and words of Christ, not the other way around. Jesus’s teachings trump the Apostles.
Huh what?! Jesus wasn’t “inspired.” He is (not was, is) the Source itself, The Word.
God does not punish sodomites, he was just setting off fire works for his fourth of July celebration.
Nope. And God doesn’t hate FRogs, either.
And men should remain silent and support their wives in the household.
What Bible are these homosexuals reading?
Are you insane? The words of Jesus are the words of God, of course they have more significance than the words of mere mortals
Their Master loves defilement. It’s his M.O.
St. Paul’s words are insightful as well: I have run the straight race, I have fought the good fight, I have kept the faith.
Clearly, Grace alone cannot save, there is action on the part of the ‘saved’ necessary - keeping the faith, fighting the good fight, running the race.
And where in the world does this universal condemnation of "bigotry" in the name (I suppose) of some nonexistent "natural" morality come from?
Again--I recommend Theonomic positivism.
I’ve been told repeatedly by someone who should know better that Paul was a crazy person, and John of Patmos even moreso. Needless to say, I don’t believe him/her.
The entire bible is "the words of God".